Could the West have countered the 1970s oil crisis with the Fischer-Tropsch Process?

Thande

Donor
See here for info

The short version is that it is possible to convert coal gas (produced by gasification of coal - captain obvious) to substitutes for petroleum spirit (gasoline) and diesel oil. This method has been used historically by Nazi Germany after being cut off from the Ploesti oil fields, as well as by South Africa under apartheid (and still today to some extent).

This method has never been used much in, say, the UK or USA, and I'm wondering why it wasn't tried in response to the 1973 oil embargo and the 1979 crisis after the Iranian Revolution, as both countries (along with Western Europe) have large coal reserves and high production. Is it simply that the economics of the process make it prohibitive unless there is literally no other option?
 
See here for info

The short version is that it is possible to convert coal gas (produced by gasification of coal - captain obvious) to substitutes for petroleum spirit (gasoline) and diesel oil. This method has been used historically by Nazi Germany after being cut off from the Ploesti oil fields, as well as by South Africa under apartheid (and still today to some extent).

This method has never been used much in, say, the UK or USA, and I'm wondering why it wasn't tried in response to the 1973 oil embargo and the 1979 crisis after the Iranian Revolution, as both countries (along with Western Europe) have large coal reserves and high production. Is it simply that the economics of the process make it prohibitive unless there is literally no other option?

In short, unless you are producing extremely esoteric fuels, such as JP-800 (a kerosine like fuel, intended for Scramjets, with a molecular breakdown temprature of 800 Degrees Farenheit), the cost of crude oil has to reach approxmately $100 per barrel for any "synfuel", such as produced by the Fischer-Troplisch method, to become economically viable to produce...
 
Basically, it's expensive, produces fuel significantly inferior to petroleum products (though this has been steadily reduced over time), has a long lead time and requires heavy capital investment, and is worse for the environment than an equal energy value of petroleum derived liquid fuels.
 
In short, unless you are producing extremely esoteric fuels, such as JP-800 (a kerosine like fuel, intended for Scramjets, with a molecular breakdown temprature of 800 Degrees Farenheit), the cost of crude oil has to reach approxmately $100 per barrel for any "synfuel", such as produced by the Fischer-Troplisch method, to become economically viable to produce...

Or, you could do what South Africa did, subsidize the business in the name of self-sufficiency. South Africa was hit hard by the 1973 embargo and apartheid-era South African governments were famously paranoid.
 
F-T has not really been researched in depth since the war and I am inclined to say that it could become a lot more economic if enough money is invested in research. Chemistry is a lot more advanced now than it was in the 1940s and even 1970s especially in the field of catalysis and reaction control. I am therefore tempted to say that F-T with modern catalysts and facilities could become competitive with petroleum above c60$ a barrel.

In a sense F-T is indeed less environmentally friendly than conventional petroleum but in other ways this is wrong. Indeed F-T fuels are virtually sulphur and nitrogen free, thereby avoiding the creation of acid rain generating chemicals when burn.
 
In a sense F-T is indeed less environmentally friendly than conventional petroleum but in other ways this is wrong. Indeed F-T fuels are virtually sulphur and nitrogen free, thereby avoiding the creation of acid rain generating chemicals when burn.

The F-T process is being researched in depth NOW by a lot of companies (including direct colleagues of mine) and I dare say it will come back very soon. Another project (pushed, until recently, by Shell) is B2L - Biomass to Liquid process, which pretty much converts a biomass instead of coal into petrol along the F-T lines. It is better than coal in terms of CO2 balance, but an average biomass is quite rich in sulphur.

OTOH any modern refinery has a desulphurization step (Klaus process) and there is nothing to prevent a F-T "refinery" with added Klaus step. It's not that expensive.
 
Another point is that the US currently uses coal to basically run the electric grid.

If the US went nuclear for primary electrical generation (as France is in OTL), it might make coal more attractive; there is already a HUGE coal industry in the US, and converting it to make fuel would reduce the economic disruption of going nuke.

The base motivation would have to be for energy independence or the cheaper power offered by a sanely-regulated nuclear industry. Coal to fuel would be an offshoot of the latter, a part of the former.
 

Thande

Donor
The reason I bring this up is I wonder if F-T could have kept the British coal industry afloat in the 1980s, presumably under a Labour government. Of course, the problem is they would have to compete with cheaper North Sea oil.
 

Nebogipfel

Monthly Donor
The Apocalypse Brigade by Alfred Coppel (1981) features western forces
using radiation weapons to irradiate the oilfields at the gulf. The plan is to
push the oil price over 100 US$ (or so) for good to make synthetic oil competetive :eek:. Typical early 80s/pre-Clancy thriller :D.
 
Another point is that the US currently uses coal to basically run the electric grid.

If the US went nuclear for primary electrical generation (as France is in OTL), it might make coal more attractive; there is already a HUGE coal industry in the US, and converting it to make fuel would reduce the economic disruption of going nuke.

The base motivation would have to be for energy independence or the cheaper power offered by a sanely-regulated nuclear industry. Coal to fuel would be an offshoot of the latter, a part of the former.

I've wrote about that on a number of occasions as well. It makes sense if you ask me. America's biggest single import cost is the costs of importing petroleum in the quantities they do. Hence, if they could make of it at home, it would be beneficial to America's trade balance and energy independence, would it not? There are lots of coal mines in the US that aren't operating right now that would be able to here, and if it was me, I'd be placing these big F-T plants in places across Appalachia that have high unemployment rates, thus killing two birds with one stone, and reducing transport costs to boot.
 
The reason I bring this up is I wonder if F-T could have kept the British coal industry afloat in the 1980s, presumably under a Labour government. Of course, the problem is they would have to compete with cheaper North Sea oil.

Maybe British Petroleum gets heavily into this technology - it was still government owned until Thatcher started selling it off in the late 70s.
 

Susano

Banned
The reason I bring this up is I wonder if F-T could have kept the British coal industry afloat in the 1980s, presumably under a Labour government. Of course, the problem is they would have to compete with cheaper North Sea oil.

Of course, both in Britain and in the Ruhr theres still coal thats however to expensive to mine. But even if coal has an additional use it would probably still be too expensive to mine. People would probably simply import coal from abroads. Maybe those really huge coal fields in North China, with the extra bonus of really cheap labour...
 
Top